5 ms·

> On the scale of tragedies that are currently occurring or for which there is a significant threat of occurring in the near future, the possibility that there

> On the scale of tragedies that are currently occurring or for which there is a significant threat of occurring in the near future, the possibility that there might be a period of time with no living humans who have walked on the moon is so trivial No. There is an argument to be made that in the absence of drama occurring up there (space, theistic mythology, etc), people will invent and create drama down here (Earth), except with more dire consequences. Considering alternative timelines, therefore, there is a decent chance that there is a real, though indirect, human cost associated with choosing not to explore. What is the human cost, for example, of boys and girls not being inspired by daring feats accomplished at the edge of possible? Nobody is quantifying it, no research grants are given to study it, but I have almost no doubt that it exists.

llamaz 10y ago
Before man walked on the moon, no one had walked on the moon, and society seemed to cope.
- etangent 10y ago
  Before man walked on the moon, it wasn't long before man first flew in a heavier-than-air apparatus, and before that it wasn't long before nobody has ever set foot on the South Pole. You can keep going. And do define "cope". We had two world wars and we almost annihilated each other in 1962 and then once in the 1980s. No, I'm not saying that if we explored space, world wars wouldn't happen. Yes, I'm fully aware that space exploration is in a way a byproduct of military endeavors. Consider why sports exist. They are also a (cultural) byproduct of military endeavors. Sports bring us a variety of benefits, including things like giving people meaning, making them bond with each other, helping maintain a healthy lifestyle, and lifting many kids out of poverty. There is a role for something like that---for exploring places like space. Consider also human (primate) psychology and how team sports can satisfy urges we would otherwise want to unleash in more destructive way on each other---and do so in a positive, constructive way. I wouldn't be surprised that in an alternative timeline where sports don't exist our newspapers would be filled with a lot more grizzly headlines on a daily basis. Consider now that we're living in an alternative/dystopian timeline where one of the most fascinating sports (exploring the unknown) had mysteriously nearly disappeared. Purely as sport, space exploration would have been of a sufficient benefit to pursue in my opinion. But of course, it is a lot more than just a sport.
  - yellowapple 10y ago
    "No, I'm not saying that if we explored space, world wars wouldn't happen." One actually could argue such. Being able to permanently and self-sustainably inhabit space means being able to reduce the strain on Earth's own resources, thus reducing the need to compete for said resources (said need being a major contributor to plenty of wars, both current and historical). It's a stretch, sure, but it's still an argument one could make.
    - jsymolon 10y ago
      > Being able to permanently and self-sustainably inhabit space means being able to .. Going to into space and making something of yourself rather than grabbing a gun and killing each other like rats in a cage?
  - lordnacho 10y ago
    A bit of a nitpick, but I don't think sports in the modern sense is a military outgrowth. I think it's something that came out of industrialization in the late 19th century. Look at the famous football clubs, they're all founded late 1800s/early 1900s, in cities. Basically guys who needed some entertainment on the one day off that many countries had instituted by then.
    - etangent 10y ago
      In cultural-psychological sense, team sport sports absolutely are.
    - lostboys67 10y ago
      Soccer and rugby are formalized and tamed down versions of communal games going back to the middle ages
Chris2048 10y ago
That's very speculative, and seems to give undue credit to "revolutionary narrative"...
coldtea 10y ago
>What is the human cost, for example, of boys and girls not being inspired by daring feats accomplished at the edge of possible? People deciding to sit at home, live sensibly, and peacefully for a chance?
- etangent 10y ago
  I hope you're being sarcastic :D
  - coldtea 10y ago
    No, I'm being serious.
erelde 10y ago
Isn't that idea also in Asimov's The End of Eternity? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Eternity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Eternity In this book humans have at some point invented time travel. Subsequently an organization ('Eternity') is born out of it to regulate and protect humans accross centuries. But, because of it, Humanity never left Earth. The main protagonist stops time travel from being invented and kickstarts the nuclear age, this is supposed to start robots and later Foundation. At least that's what I remember, I tried to summarize without reading Wikipedia for a change. The key of the story is that either humans invent space travel and have a chance to thrive, or stay on Earth and are guaranteed to become extinct.
- etangent 10y ago
  That's one of my favorite sci-fi novels and it's eerily ahead of its time IMO. Among many difficult questions, it also deals with "is it good for humankind to be ruled by an invisible technocratic elite?" "are we unknowingly increasing long-term existential risk by concerning ourselves first with short-term safety?"
  - erelde 10y ago
    And then what's "good" in relation to "what's good for humankind", what's "humankind". Same process for the second sentence. I think in some defintion I could argue either side of the Eternity.
- Justsignedup 10y ago
  Eternity is made. The keepers keep disasters from happening, thus humanity is kept in a generally mediocre state, no major struggles, etc. By the time humanity, with no struggle, reach the ability to travel the stars, the stars are occupied, we're late. The future eternity (eternity itself has a timeline independent of the original) realized this and decided to let humans fend for themselves and thus fix the long term problem.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> There is an argument to be made that in the absence of drama occurring up there (space, theistic mythology, etc), people will invent and create drama down here (Earth), except with more dire consequences. Not a good argument, since all of the examples of what you call "drama up there" that have ever existed have simply been projections of "drama down here", rather than alternatives to such drama.

llamaz 10y ago

Before man walked on the moon, no one had walked on the moon, and society seemed to cope.

etangent 10y ago
Before man walked on the moon, it wasn't long before man first flew in a heavier-than-air apparatus, and before that it wasn't long before nobody has ever set foot on the South Pole. You can keep going. And do define "cope". We had two world wars and we almost annihilated each other in 1962 and then once in the 1980s. No, I'm not saying that if we explored space, world wars wouldn't happen. Yes, I'm fully aware that space exploration is in a way a byproduct of military endeavors. Consider why sports exist. They are also a (cultural) byproduct of military endeavors. Sports bring us a variety of benefits, including things like giving people meaning, making them bond with each other, helping maintain a healthy lifestyle, and lifting many kids out of poverty. There is a role for something like that---for exploring places like space. Consider also human (primate) psychology and how team sports can satisfy urges we would otherwise want to unleash in more destructive way on each other---and do so in a positive, constructive way. I wouldn't be surprised that in an alternative timeline where sports don't exist our newspapers would be filled with a lot more grizzly headlines on a daily basis. Consider now that we're living in an alternative/dystopian timeline where one of the most fascinating sports (exploring the unknown) had mysteriously nearly disappeared. Purely as sport, space exploration would have been of a sufficient benefit to pursue in my opinion. But of course, it is a lot more than just a sport.
- yellowapple 10y ago
  "No, I'm not saying that if we explored space, world wars wouldn't happen." One actually could argue such. Being able to permanently and self-sustainably inhabit space means being able to reduce the strain on Earth's own resources, thus reducing the need to compete for said resources (said need being a major contributor to plenty of wars, both current and historical). It's a stretch, sure, but it's still an argument one could make.
  - jsymolon 10y ago
    > Being able to permanently and self-sustainably inhabit space means being able to .. Going to into space and making something of yourself rather than grabbing a gun and killing each other like rats in a cage?
- lordnacho 10y ago
  A bit of a nitpick, but I don't think sports in the modern sense is a military outgrowth. I think it's something that came out of industrialization in the late 19th century. Look at the famous football clubs, they're all founded late 1800s/early 1900s, in cities. Basically guys who needed some entertainment on the one day off that many countries had instituted by then.
  - etangent 10y ago
    In cultural-psychological sense, team sport sports absolutely are.
  - lostboys67 10y ago
    Soccer and rugby are formalized and tamed down versions of communal games going back to the middle ages

Chris2048 10y ago

That's very speculative, and seems to give undue credit to "revolutionary narrative"...

coldtea 10y ago

>What is the human cost, for example, of boys and girls not being inspired by daring feats accomplished at the edge of possible? People deciding to sit at home, live sensibly, and peacefully for a chance?

etangent 10y ago
I hope you're being sarcastic :D
- coldtea 10y ago
  No, I'm being serious.

erelde 10y ago

Isn't that idea also in Asimov's The End of Eternity? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Eternity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Eternity In this book humans have at some point invented time travel. Subsequently an organization ('Eternity') is born out of it to regulate and protect humans accross centuries. But, because of it, Humanity never left Earth. The main protagonist stops time travel from being invented and kickstarts the nuclear age, this is supposed to start robots and later Foundation. At least that's what I remember, I tried to summarize without reading Wikipedia for a change. The key of the story is that either humans invent space travel and have a chance to thrive, or stay on Earth and are guaranteed to become extinct.

etangent 10y ago
That's one of my favorite sci-fi novels and it's eerily ahead of its time IMO. Among many difficult questions, it also deals with "is it good for humankind to be ruled by an invisible technocratic elite?" "are we unknowingly increasing long-term existential risk by concerning ourselves first with short-term safety?"
- erelde 10y ago
  And then what's "good" in relation to "what's good for humankind", what's "humankind". Same process for the second sentence. I think in some defintion I could argue either side of the Eternity.
Justsignedup 10y ago
Eternity is made. The keepers keep disasters from happening, thus humanity is kept in a generally mediocre state, no major struggles, etc. By the time humanity, with no struggle, reach the ability to travel the stars, the stars are occupied, we're late. The future eternity (eternity itself has a timeline independent of the original) realized this and decided to let humans fend for themselves and thus fix the long term problem.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> There is an argument to be made that in the absence of drama occurring up there (space, theistic mythology, etc), people will invent and create drama down here (Earth), except with more dire consequences. Not a good argument, since all of the examples of what you call "drama up there" that have ever existed have simply been projections of "drama down here", rather than alternatives to such drama.